> The odd thing is that some of the computers show normal WU times and have the
> appropriate number of Wu's in the cache and others do not. It seems that the
> ones with normal WU times are all running XP and the ones with abnormal WU
> times are running Windows 2000. Not sure if this means anything but I thought
> it might be useful for the dev folks to know.

I am running XP and had, and still have, the "long" WU's.

Greetings from Belgium.

> Fine, I'll pipe in here, this was a change that David, Jeff, and myself were
> not notified of before it was made. Tomorrow I'll be talking to the Dev that
> made the change and possibly revert it back to the original number or at least
> drop the numbers a bit.
>
> A bug hasn't been filed on it yet, and depending on tomorrows conversation may
> not be necessary.

We'll understand if we don't hear back Woody.

<a> [/url]

I've gotten some preditor wu's with 1 day deadlines.

If I had a very large cache size it's unlikely I ever would have received these short deadline WU's. For this predictor project these wu's are important to get soon and were singled out with very short deadlines for the good of the project and it's own timetables.



I run both seti and predictor. I think this settles the matter somewhat for me as too how big a cache I'm going to keep. I think I'll keep it at a day or less in size. If a wu is important enough to warrent a 24 hour deadline count me in on wanting to crunch it and help the science along!



well maybe cache size wouldn't matter so much in truth because the shorter deadlined wu's get priority. But still having a large cache on computers with easy internet access is rather silly.

Hi

olli wrote:
>...seems that the
> ones with normal WU times are all running XP and the ones with abnormal WU
> times are running Windows 2000...

Running both systems: No, this is not correct. This conclusion might have the reason in seeing "old" WU's loaded before the change to the Win2k machine(s) and "newer" WU's loaded to the XP's later.

regards
GriLLe

I have only Seti units at the moment. I have one that is 99.45% finished in 3:03:50 and it just downloaded another one saying it will take 29:52:39 to crunch. Incorrect of caourse. The thing is, because I ask for "1 day"'s worth of work, it downloads a seti then stops. If I choose to go offline for whatever reason, when the unit is finished, in a few hours, I'm idle, neither seti or Predictor is being processed.

The Seti unit finished as I typed this BTW! 3:04:15. Win XP system.
<p>
------------------
Wave upon wave of demented avengers march cheerfully out of obscurity into the dream.

> well maybe cache size wouldn't matter so much in truth because the shorter
> deadlined wu's get priority. But still having a large cache on computers
> with easy internet access is rather silly.

Yes, the short deadline P@H WUs would be processed first, it doesn't really matter how much work you have in your cache.

The kicker is that with a smaller cache, you will be asking for work more often, so you have a better chance of getting some of these extremely tight deadline WUs when they come up. :-)

Of course, with a larger cache, you can better weather server outages, but with the added feature of running multiple projects, the odds are in your favor that you will be able to get work from another project when one is down.

<a> [/url]

Oddly enough, I received a couple of WUs that only took a couple of minutes to crunch. All of them were created on Jan, 11th.